best baby monitor consumer reports image
Aaron Cost
When my router is plugged VIA Ethernet, I can get download speeds of 62,000 kbps (7.2Mb/s) and this result was supplied by multiple online download speed testers, and is true.
However, because I'm being forced into using a wireless adapter (Realtek RTL8187B 802.11g 54Mbps) and then my download speed is 6000 kbps, my connectivity to it is Excellent and it reports good signal strength... The 54Mbps cap is enough for 62,000 kbps.
I'm so annoyed, frustrated and confused.
Should I buy a new wireless adapter that is not a USB one? Is there a setting I need to change...?
Answer
Well, 802.11g is half duplex, meaning only one device can communicate at a time. Because of this (and a few other factors) 802.11g is only usually less than 50% efficient. So if your data rate is 54 Mbps, then you can expect an actual through of around 27 Mbps (or less). That would be 3 MBps. You also have to factor in the number of connected devices. Also 54 Mbps is only ~55,000 Kbps so you wouldn't get your 62k with it anyways..
WiFi is a shared medium, so if anything else is connected, that will decrease the available bandwidth to the device. Devices operating on the same channel will create interference which will also decrease performance. Microwaves, baby monitors, and other WiFi networks on the same channel will cause interference. Try to stay away from non-WiFi devices you are try to use the network and they are operational. Also, if their are other wireless networks near you, make sure you are operating on a different, non-overlapping channel.
Also, take into account the quality of the router. Some consumer grade devices aren't very at forwarding packets, so even though they report they support a certain data rate doesn't mean they will forward data at full line rate. Only way to test this is to try connecting to someone else's WiFi with a similar Internet bandwidth but a different router. If you get better performance there, its possible your router sucks.
Well, 802.11g is half duplex, meaning only one device can communicate at a time. Because of this (and a few other factors) 802.11g is only usually less than 50% efficient. So if your data rate is 54 Mbps, then you can expect an actual through of around 27 Mbps (or less). That would be 3 MBps. You also have to factor in the number of connected devices. Also 54 Mbps is only ~55,000 Kbps so you wouldn't get your 62k with it anyways..
WiFi is a shared medium, so if anything else is connected, that will decrease the available bandwidth to the device. Devices operating on the same channel will create interference which will also decrease performance. Microwaves, baby monitors, and other WiFi networks on the same channel will cause interference. Try to stay away from non-WiFi devices you are try to use the network and they are operational. Also, if their are other wireless networks near you, make sure you are operating on a different, non-overlapping channel.
Also, take into account the quality of the router. Some consumer grade devices aren't very at forwarding packets, so even though they report they support a certain data rate doesn't mean they will forward data at full line rate. Only way to test this is to try connecting to someone else's WiFi with a similar Internet bandwidth but a different router. If you get better performance there, its possible your router sucks.
Should GMO foods be banned until proven safe?
DaveW79
NaturalNews) A report published in the International Journal of Microbiology has verified once again that Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) crops are causing severe health problems. A legal challenge issued against Monsanto forced the multi-national agriculture giant to release raw data revealing that animals fed its patented GM corn suffered liver and kidney damage within just three months.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z028388_GM_crops_kidney_damage.html
Hundreds of sheep have died in India after grazing on cotton plants after the BT Cotton was harvested.
Answer
I've looked into this study and, statistically speaking, it is a textbook case of a Type I error. In science, we call this type of error a 'false positive'. In other words, there was a weak correlation between the liver damage and the consumption of Bt toxins that could have just as easily been attributed to chance. Therefore, it is illogical to jump to conclusions and declare that a causal relationship exists.
There are many, many other tests, on the other hand, that indicate that the toxin is perfectly harmless. Think about this for a second. The Bt toxin is naturally produced by Bacillus thurengiensis. This is a very common bacteria; it is found in most soils and on many plant surfaces. We have been eating this bacteria, along with the Bt toxin that it produces, for thousands of years. Bt corn has had the gene that codes for Bt proteins spliced into it. When these normally harmless proteins are exposed to alkaline conditions they change conformation and latch onto the walls of the intestinal tract, causing cells to lyse and eventually killing the animal. Many herbivorous insects have very alkaline intestinal tracts. Humans and other mammals, on the other hand, have acid to neutral intestinal tracts. In our GI tract, the protein remains in its harmless natural conformation.
I agree that GMO's need to be more heavily monitored, especially the ones that are modified to produce pharmaceuticals. IMO, they should only be grown in isolated hothouses so they cannot cross-pollinate with our field crops. But Bt crops and RoundUp ready crops are both harmless. When we grow Bt crops we don't have to use pesticides, which can be very damaging to the surrounding ecosystem and to the consumer.
When we plant RoundUp ready crops, then we can use RoundUp exclusively. I've studied herbicides extensively in college. Some of them are horrible chemicals, staying in the soil for years. Some of them will burn human skin if they touch it, basically popping our cells like balloons. Others, mostly auxin-based herbicides, can be carried on the wind for miles, burning the new growth of entire forests. Glyphosate (RoundUp) is a very safe herbicide. It isn't dangerous unless you drink large amounts of it (which would be incredibly stupid), breaks down in the soil after about three days, and doesn't leech nearly as easily as many other, more dangerous herbicides. It's only harmful to the environment if it gets into wetlands, where it can injure amphibians. But that can be avoided by using best management practices.
Some GMOs are dangerous. Many are actually helpful: they reduce the use of more dangerous herbicides and pesticides. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I've looked into this study and, statistically speaking, it is a textbook case of a Type I error. In science, we call this type of error a 'false positive'. In other words, there was a weak correlation between the liver damage and the consumption of Bt toxins that could have just as easily been attributed to chance. Therefore, it is illogical to jump to conclusions and declare that a causal relationship exists.
There are many, many other tests, on the other hand, that indicate that the toxin is perfectly harmless. Think about this for a second. The Bt toxin is naturally produced by Bacillus thurengiensis. This is a very common bacteria; it is found in most soils and on many plant surfaces. We have been eating this bacteria, along with the Bt toxin that it produces, for thousands of years. Bt corn has had the gene that codes for Bt proteins spliced into it. When these normally harmless proteins are exposed to alkaline conditions they change conformation and latch onto the walls of the intestinal tract, causing cells to lyse and eventually killing the animal. Many herbivorous insects have very alkaline intestinal tracts. Humans and other mammals, on the other hand, have acid to neutral intestinal tracts. In our GI tract, the protein remains in its harmless natural conformation.
I agree that GMO's need to be more heavily monitored, especially the ones that are modified to produce pharmaceuticals. IMO, they should only be grown in isolated hothouses so they cannot cross-pollinate with our field crops. But Bt crops and RoundUp ready crops are both harmless. When we grow Bt crops we don't have to use pesticides, which can be very damaging to the surrounding ecosystem and to the consumer.
When we plant RoundUp ready crops, then we can use RoundUp exclusively. I've studied herbicides extensively in college. Some of them are horrible chemicals, staying in the soil for years. Some of them will burn human skin if they touch it, basically popping our cells like balloons. Others, mostly auxin-based herbicides, can be carried on the wind for miles, burning the new growth of entire forests. Glyphosate (RoundUp) is a very safe herbicide. It isn't dangerous unless you drink large amounts of it (which would be incredibly stupid), breaks down in the soil after about three days, and doesn't leech nearly as easily as many other, more dangerous herbicides. It's only harmful to the environment if it gets into wetlands, where it can injure amphibians. But that can be avoided by using best management practices.
Some GMOs are dangerous. Many are actually helpful: they reduce the use of more dangerous herbicides and pesticides. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Why is my wireless adapter limiting my download speed?
Rating: 96% based on 987 ratings. 4,3 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 96% based on 987 ratings. 4,3 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment